01649-25 Evans v Wales on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Martyn Evans complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Wales on Sunday breached Clause 1 and Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “SERIAL ABUSER POSED AS ‘PERFECT MAN’”, published on 6 April 2025.

2. The article - which appeared on the front page and continued on pages 4 and 5 - reported on comments made by the complainant’s ex-partner.

3. It reported that a “non-molestation order was granted in September 2023 after [the complainant’s ex-partner] made an application based on a pattern of abuse” and that the complainant “plead[ed] guilty at Newport Magistrates’ Court to an offence of breaching a non-molestation order by contacting [his ex-partner] under the online alias of ‘Big man’.” It also said that “Magistrates imposed a 12-month community order with 70 hours of unpaid work as well as a restraining order barring Evans from contacting [his ex-partner] for two years.”

4. It then reported:

“Following Evans’ release from prison [his ex-partner] accompanied him to a probation appointment and an officer referred her to the domestic violence disclosure scheme — also known as Clare’s Law — which gives people the right to know if their partner has a history of violence or abuse. Soon afterwards [his ex-partner] received a call from South Wales Police. ‘All they told me was that he had previous for domestic abuse.’”

5. It also reported that, in 2022, “Gwent Police then applied for a domestic violence protection order”. It said the application for the order stated the complainant’s ex-partner “was at ‘high risk’ and ‘disclosed that he assaulted two weeks ago inside the home address.” Reporting on the resulting hearing, the article reported: “a police officer said the reported assault had involved Evans throwing a plastic photo frame which hit [his ex-partner’s] leg without causing injury”, and that the complainant’s ex-partner had:

“declined to make a statement to police because she was scared’. ‘Mr Evans was interviewed and denied the assault.’

“The court then heard from [the complainant’s ex-partner] who said she did not want to pursue the order. The magistrates found that on the balance of probabilities there had been threats of violence but that an order was not necessary because [his ex-partner] did not support one”.

6. The article then reported that the “relationship finally ended on December 22, 2022 […] She claims Evans put a Christmas tree and boxes of glass ornaments in front of the door to stop her leaving but that she felt safe to do so after she texted 999 and police attended the home”.

7. It also reported that a “South Wales Police spokesman said: ‘South Wales Police responded to a Clare’s Law application in 2017. Safeguarding officers took the decision to make a further disclosure when they were made aware of additional information about the individual.’”

8. The article also, when reporting that the complainant had pleaded guilty to breaching a non-molestation order, set out the complainant’s street-level address. It further reported that the complainant played for a rugby club, and named the club in question.

9. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline “My ex posed as the perfect man. I was just his latest victim”. This version of the article was published in on 5 April 2025.

10. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it reported that “Magistrates imposed a […] restraining order barring Evans from contacting [his ex-partner] for two years.” He said the restraining order barred him from contacting his ex-partner for one year, rather than two. He provided a copy of the order in question, which showed that it was issued on 28 August 2024 and was due to last until 27 August 2025.

11. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because it reported that his ex-partner “had accompanied him to a probation appointment”, where she had been referred to a domestic violence disclosure scheme – which was how she became aware that the complainant “had [a] previous for domestic abuse”. He said his ex-partner had not been permitted to attend the probation appointment; she had attempted to accompany him, but had been told she couldn’t by staff. He said, therefore, no such disclosure had been made to her by a police officer.

12. The complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that “a police officer said the reported assault had involved Evans throwing a plastic photo frame which hit [his ex-partner’s] leg without causing injury” and that the police officer in question said that the complainant’s ex-partner had “declined to make a statement to police because she was scared”. The complainant said this was inaccurate as he had never assaulted his ex-partner. Although he had been arrested in relation to the allegation that he had thrown a photo frame at her, he had not been charged with assault.

13. He provided an official transcript of his police interview which said he “denied throwing a photo frame at [redacted] and committing common assault” and “custody has NFA [No Further Action] the incident of common assault but he was issued with a DVPN [Domestic Violence Protection Notice].”. He said his ex-partner had not been “scared” to make a statement to the police, as she had later represented herself in court to ask that the complainant be allowed to return to their shared home.

14. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that “The magistrates found that on the balance of probabilities there had been threats of violence but that an order [Domestic Violence Protection Order] was not necessary because [the ex-partner] did not support one.” He said this was inaccurate and misleading: the order had not been granted because there was no evidence of him having committed any offences towards his ex-partner.

15. The complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that “The relationship finally ended on December 22, 2022 […] She felt safe to do so after she texted 999 and police attended the home”. He did not dispute that police had attended the property on 22 December 2022, but said that on that occasion he had been the one to contact the police.

16. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate overall because it omitted to include his account of the relationship. He provided a number of heavily redacted police documents which he said supported his version of events.

17. The complainant then said the article breached Clause 2 where it included his street-level address, neighbourhood, and named his rugby club and rugby team. He also said publishing information about his spent convictions – namely, the ones which had allegedly been disclosed to his ex-partner by the police - breached his privacy and was unlawful.

18. The publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported that the restraining order had been imposed for two years, and acknowledged that the restraining order had actually been imposed for one year. It said the inaccuracy came about due to a human error when calculating the length of the order based on information from a court list.

19. On 8 May, one day after the publication was made aware of the complaint by IPSO, it amended the online article to reflect that the restraining order had been imposed for one year instead of two, and added the following footnote correction to the online article:

“A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that the restraining order against Martyn Evans was for two years. In fact, the restraining order was valid for one year. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

20. On the following day, it published the following correction in its Corrections and Clarifications column, on page 4 of its print edition:

“CORRECTION: Our article ‘He posed as the ‘perfect man – but girlfriend was just his latest victim’, April 7, which told a woman’s story of her five-year relationship with an abusive man, Martyn Evans, incorrectly reported that the restraining order against him was for two years. In fact, the restraining order was valid for one year and we are happy to clarify this.“

21. The publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate on the remainder of the points raised by the complainant. It turned first to the article’s claim that the complainant’s ex-partner accompanied him to a probation appointment, where she was first made aware of his previous conviction. It said that this was clearly distinguished as the ex-partner’s version of events which it had no reason to doubt. It also said that, as quoted in the article, South Wales Police said they had “responded to a Clare’s Law application in 2017. Safeguarding officers took the decision to make a further disclosure when they were made aware of additional information about the individual.”

22. The publication noted that the article did not at any point claim that the complainant had been charged with assaulting his ex-partner. It also said the article accurately reported what the police officer had said in court about the incident which led to the complainant’s arrest. To support its position, it provided the reporter’s notes from the court hearing, which read: “threw plastic photo frame at leg at time, she stated had no injuries to leg, declined make statement to police because scared”. It also provided a copy of a Domestic Violence Protection Notice issued to the complainant which read: “Current incident reported. [Complainant’s ex-partner] stated she was hit by an object thrown at her by Martyn Evans”; and “Victim [ex-partner] is not supportive of a police investigation and has refused to make a complaint”.

23. The publication also did not accept that the article was inaccurate to report the reasons given by the magistrate at the 2022 hearing for not issuing a Domestic Violence Protection Order. It said the article reflected the register of Gwent Magistrates Court, which read “Application refused. Reasons: The Magistrates found on the balance of probabilities that there had been an incident of threats of violence however did not find that an order was necessary to protect the IP from the threat of violence by the Defendant due to her attendance today and making representations that she wanted the defendant returned to the home”. It said this tallied with what the article had reported.

24. Turning to what led the police to attend the property in December 2022 – as the complainant had said it was him, rather than his ex-partner, who had called the police - the publication said the version of events depicted in the article was clearly presented as a claim made by the complainant’s ex-partner.

25. The publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate by omitting the complainant’s account of the relationship or for not referring to documents which he said supported that account.

26. The publication did not accept that the article breached Clause 2. It said the information which caused the complainant concerns – his street-level address, neighbourhood, and rugby club - had been made public in open court and was not subject to reporting restrictions, and therefore the publication was entitled to publish it.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Findings of the Committee

27. The publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported that “The Magistrates imposed […] a restraining order barring Evans from contacting [his ex-partner] for two years.” It said the inaccuracy had come about due to human error. In light of this the Committee considered the publication had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information on this point. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

28. The Committee next considered whether the article was significantly inaccurate on this point and therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee emphasised the importance of accurate court reporting, particularly in relation to sentencing outcomes: The sentencing of people who have been convicted of criminal offences is a matter which often spurs public debate. Further, it noted that news reporting of trials and their outcomes will often be the sole public record of that case.

29. It also considered that, where the article reported that the restraining order imposed upon the complainant was twice as long as it was – two years instead of one - this gave readers a significantly inaccurate impression of the magistrate’s ruling in the case. Where the complainant’s sentence had been reported in a significantly inaccurate manner, a correction was required in accordance with Clause 1 (ii).

30. The Committee therefore turned to the question of whether the action taken by the publication, after being made aware of the inaccuracy, was sufficient to address the terms of the sub-Clause.

31. One day after being made aware of the complaint, the publication had amended the online version of the article to state that the restraining order imposed on the complainant was for one year, and published a footnote correction. A day later, it published a print correction in its Corrections and Clarifications column, on page 4.

32. Both corrections made clear that the original version of the article “incorrectly reported that the restraining order against Martyn Evans was for two years”, and that it had in fact been imposed for one year. The Committee considered that the wording of the corrections both made clear why the original article was inaccurate, and put the correct position on record.

33. The corrections appeared in the print Clarifications & Corrections column – a duly prominent location, given this would be where readers would expect to find such corrections..

34. Turning to the online article, the correction had been published as a footnote. This was duly prominent as the inaccuracy had only appeared in the text of the article, and the article had been amended to remove the inaccurate information. The Committee was therefore satisfied with the wording of the correction and its prominence.

35. It further noted that the amendment and corrections had been published one day after the publication was first made aware of the complaint in the case of the online version, and two days after in regard to the print version. As such, the Committee was satisfied that the corrections were published with sufficient promptness. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

36. The Committee next turned to the claim that the complainant’s ex-partner “had accompanied him to a probation appointment”, where she had been referred “to the domestic violence disclosure scheme”. It noted that, by the complainant’s own account, his ex-partner had attempted to attend the probation appointment with him but had been asked to leave. In light of this, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate or misleading to report that she had “accompanied him to a probation appointment”.

37. It noted that whilst the complainant disputed that his ex-partner had ever been informed of his previous conviction under the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, he was not in a position to know whether or not such a disclosure had taken place. It further noted that this claim was corroborated by a comment from South Wales police quoted in the article, which stated: “South Wales Police responded to a Clare’s Law application in 2017. Safeguarding officers took the decision to make a further disclosure when they were made aware of additional information about the individual.” Therefore, on balance, the Committee was satisfied that the article was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 .

38. The Committee then considered whether the article had accurately reported the outcome of the 2022 hearing. The complainant had said the article had not done so, because he had not assaulted or been charged with assaulting his ex-partner, and she had not been too scared to make a statement to the police. The Committee noted that the article did not at any point claim that the complainant had been charged with assaulting his ex-partner. Rather, it reported that an assault had been “reported” to the police – which did not appear to be in dispute, given the complainant accepted he had been arrested in connection with the incident.

39. Turning to the claim the complainant’s ex partner “declined to make a statement to police because she was scared”, the Committee considered that this was clearly distinguished as a statement made by a police officer giving evidence in court. It did not appear to be in dispute that the police officer had made such a statement in court.

40. The Committee also considered the article tallied with the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes on this point. The notes said: “threw plastic photo frame at leg at time, she stated had no injuries to leg, declined make statement to police because scared”. In addition, the copy of the Domestic Violence Protection Notice issued to the complainant also supported this claim, where it read: “Current incident reported. [Complainant’s ex-partner] stated she was hit by an object thrown at her by Martyn Evans”; and “Victim [ex-partner] is not supportive of a police investigation and has refused to make a complaint”. In such circumstances, the publication had demonstrated that it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information on this point. There was no breach of 1(i), and the article was not significantly inaccurate, so no correction was necessary under 1(ii).

41. The Committee next turned to the article’s reported reasons for the refusal of the Domestic Violence Protection Order. The complainant had said the article was inaccurate because it had been declined due to a lack of evidence against him, rather than because his ex-partner did not support the order. However, the Committee noted that the article reflected the details given in the court register, as provided by the publication: “Application refused. Reasons: The Magistrates found on the balance of probabilities that there had been an incident of threats of violence however did not find that an order was necessary to protect the IP from the threat of violence by the Defendant due to her attendance today and making representations that she wanted the defendant returned to the home”. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the article was an accurate reflection of the reasons given by the court for refusing the order, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

42. Considering the disputed line that “She [the ex-partner] claims Evans put a Christmas tree and boxes of glass ornaments in front of the door to stop her leaving but that she felt safe to do so after she texted 999 and police attended the home”, the Committee noted the complainant’s position that this was misleading as he had called the police on this occasion. The Committee noted that this version of events was clearly distinguished as being from the complainant’s ex-partner’s perspective, as signified by the words “She claims” at the start of the sentence. Further, the complainant did not dispute that the police had attended the property on 22 December 2022, and had in fact provided a police document to support this, which stated “Officer’s thoughts – We have been receiving many calls from all parties involved”. In light of this, there was no breach of Clause 1.

43. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that the article was inaccurate because it omitted his account of the relationship and did not refer to documents upon which he relied. The Committee noted, firstly, that Clause 1 does not specify that publications must include all details heard in court cases. Moreover, it noted that the article was clearly distinguished as the complainant’s ex-partner’s perspective of the relationship, as signified by phrases such as “a woman says”, “she is speaking out”, “she believes”, “she claims”. It was not presented as a dispassionate factual report of the relationship, and was clearly informed by the woman’s perspective of events,. In such circumstances, omitting the complainant’s perspective and position did not represent a breach of Clause 1.

44. Next, the Committee turned to the Clause 2 element of the complaint – that the publication had intruded into the complainant’s right to privacy where it published his name, street-level address, and information about his spent convictions. First, the Committee noted that in accordance with the principle of open justice and where no reporting restriction has been made, newspapers are entitled to publish an individual’s name and street-level address in relation to a conviction in order to identify them correctly. The newspaper was also therefore entitled to publish information about the complainant’s previous conviction which had been heard in court and was therefore in the public domain.

45. In terms of the details of the complainant’s rugby club, this did not reveal anything over which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy; whether or not someone is a member of a sports team is not, generally, information about someone’s private and family life.. There was no breach of Clause 2 on these points.

46. The complainant had expressed concern that the newspaper had broken the law when publishing details of his spent conviction as set out in the article. However, the Committee noted it was not able to make findings on whether the law had been broken.

Conclusions

47. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

48. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 09/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/09/2025